Hmm ... there are actually a handful of obvious suspects in Saints in our Book ...
After some meditation ...
I think the only way to "repair" this is to adjust the rep2xp economics.
Like only x first votes per day on posts older 4 weeks get a gratification. This might be hard to implement tho ...
My incentive to do this would not so much be the rigged saints ranking, but rather the distortion in rep weightings of posts.
> I suspect that LanX's theory here is a likely explanation.
Often it takes a criminal to catch a criminal! ;-)
| [reply] |
I'm not sure I'm in favour of changing the economics. Can you explain to me how the change would make my progress faster? ;-)
map{substr$_->[0],$_->[1]||0,1}[\*||{},3],[[]],[ref qr-1,-,-1],[{}],[sub{}^*ARGV,3]
| [reply]
[d/l] |
well XP whores can't rely anymore on voting on archived nodes, and will need to post more...
> Can you explain to me how the change would make my progress faster? ;-)
More posts mean more occasions for you to reply, and collecting votes (from other XP-whores ;)...
| [reply] |
I'm not sure I understand why the economics should need to change: as I understand it, we get these sorts of undesirable results only when someone abuses the system, and there is already a blanket rule against abuse.
Changing the economics will not stop the problem of people abusing the system, or of failure to enforce the rule against it.
| [reply] |
Do you see a viable reason why someone should get a gratification for casting hundreds of votes week after week on old nodes?
And we already have - for other reasons - dog-votes in place to punish too many down-votes.
My suggestion is just to reduce the 25% ratio to 0% after a frequency of x votes on y old nodes in a time-span of z days, so not really a punishment. (x,y,z is a matter of debate)
Personally ... if I thought 100 archived nodes deserved to be up-voted, I wouldn't really care about the reward.
And this exploit is only of interest for monks in the Saints region, which have too many votes for contemporary nodes. Saints shouldn't care either.
"Gelegenheit macht Diebe" ( ~ Opportunity makes a thief).
> and there is already a blanket rule against abuse.
A rule only makes sense if it can be enforced. I can think of many ways to disguise such votes as legitimate.
We only learned now about it because someone was sloppy enough to mainly upvote davido
"Wo kein Kläger, da kein Richter" ( ~ "where there's no plaintiff, there's no judge")
I think it's much easier to limit the exploit instead of implementing a surveillance apparatus to hunt down the culprits.
| [reply] |